Florida Clinical Practice Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
591680273
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Gainesville, FL, USA
Phone
3522658017
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,260,917,458
Expenses
$1,281,289,985
Assets
$385,750,115
Liabilities
$245,798,498

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

42 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jamie Conti MD (Vice President)
  • Marvin Dewar MD JD (Senior Associate Dean & CEO, UF Physicians)
  • C Parker Gibbs MD (Orthopaedics, President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Brian Hoh MD (Neurosurgery, Chair): $1,606,765 total reported compensation
  • C Parker Gibbs MD (Orthopaedics, President): $1,120,524 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Hunt MD (Chairman and Interim Dean): $1,070,159 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Florida Clinical Practice Association, Inc. was formed primarily for the purpose of enhancing the quality of medical education and research at the University of Florida.

What it reported doing in 2024

Clinical services and education - The FCPA facilitates the provision of educationally oriented clinical practice settings and opportunities, through which University of Florida faculty members provide health and medical treatment to patients as an integral part of their academic activities and their employment as faculty. Such faculty practice activities are designed to assure clinical practice opportunities and experiences that are essential in the training of students and postgraduate health professionals and that will enhance skills and knowledge of faculty members who must teach and train medical and other health professional students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 14
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.9%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.9% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 24 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2B in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 42 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.5M reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.